I think it has to do with the fact that their early stuff from the mid/late 80's used to crack at the welds, thus the knickname "Crack-n-fail"

I have a '98 CAAD3 frameset with 105 and have been mucho happy with it.

Brett

I have a Cannondale R700 2.8 series frame from 1993 and it is still going strong. No problems with the frame ever. It is light and stiff as can be and has been used in a whole slew of races, including two ironmans. As of last summer, it got relegated to trainer and foul weather duty but only because I felt the "want" to change bikes, not a "need". I think that their new stuff is really nice and love the paint schemes on their ironman bikes.

I think cannondale makes some of the best road frames around. I probably would never pay for anything more than a caad4 though. The caad 5 has an integrated headset, and while the higher caads are plenty strong, they aren't quite as crash sturdy as their lower caad counterparts.

Real roadies wave, bigshot cat3's on testosterone and ego buzzes don't wave.

I've never owned a Cannondale but I have quite a hard-on against them. I think they are pretty good road bikes BUT!

Their large diameter tubing is simply not a great idea for someone trying to push a small hole through the atmosphere quickly. HIding in the bunch negates this point, but how much bunch riding to you do in tri's?

Similarly, the large diameter aluminum tubes make them very stiff. This is good for bike riders, particularly crit riders, but for long distance time trialists (ie US) I don't think they're particularly appropriate as they transmit too much vibration to the rider, fatiguing muscles and loosening fillings. This point is particularly important here in NZ (just read any IMNZ report to find out about our rough roads)

They do sell tri geometry bikes but why bother? They're relativley expensive here compared with other brands, and while they can be got into the right position, why not just buy a proper tri bike like a Cervelo or similar?

Their "Aero" line of frames should be outlawed. How can a tube THAT wide ever be aero? Even if they didn't have the round leading edge, but eliptical instead, they're just so damned wide it's a farce.

There are sooooo many other appropriate tri rides available, I wouldn't even put a Cannondale on my list. Regardless of the fact they're the official IM bike (how'd that happen BTW? must've been $ and nothing else.)

TriDork

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Have you ever rode a fat tube alum frame? Though not as much aero how much time have you lost on a TT or IM?How much more uncomfortable? I do not own a C-dale. I do own a klein,and have found that the "the road buzz" is bullshit. i ride on almost exclusively chip-seal. How a bike rides always seems to be more about design than materials. I am not flaming you,I am really curious. I bought my Klein due to what was available to me,and what was the closest fit.(No tri- shops near me,when I get my IM from 12hrs to 11.5 or less I plan on buying a tri bike)I am VERY,VERY satisfied with my fat tube alum. What am I missing?

I agree with timberwolf,

Full disclosure: I sell Cannondale bikes at Bikesport.

In the past Cannondale has gotten, and IMO deserved, a bad rap. The 2.8 and 3.0 series frames were IMO a poor design with sub-standard durability and poor ride quality.

That was then. Cannondale came a long way since then to get where they are now. They have some ipressive road product now in the form of their "6.13" road frame (is that what it's called?) which I saw for the first time last week- a carbon fiber and aluminum road frame used by the Cannondale sponsored pro teams.

Also, the new Slice aero frame is very nice, with nice desing, revised geometry, and excellent ride quality.

A lot of companies have had their "growing pains" and God knows Cannondale- with some dubious designs and a backruptcy in their past- is no exception. But I think they are at theri best right now, and that is why I like them.

I wouldn't buy them (and sell them) if I wasn't convinced they were good.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I'm guessing a tri bike would take you from 12 to 11:30. Not just ride time but improved running off the bike. If none available near by, go via the internet like I did. Research like crazy, then buy the best bike for you.

Like my complaints about Cannondale, I can't believe that Klein has sold so many bikes to trigeeks (partiuclarly in NZ)

I agree about materials. My Cervelo is aluminum (aluminium?) and it rides Sweeeeeeet. Mind you, I do have an Azoto saddle, all the way forward on the rails (cantilevered) for more spring, a QR saddle cover AND an extra chamois sewn in to my IM riding shorts. Mmmmmmmm comfy. Way more comfy than even my steel raod bike with similar setup.

Go Cervelo! Down wth Cannondale :-)

TriDork

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

just a c-dale history, for fun. their first bikes ( touring bikes, btw . . . . ) were so horrid as to defy words, almost. the welds had huge gobs of filler on them, nothing even remotely resembling a bead. moreover, they still had not figured out how to heat treat the frames after welding ( no, really . . . ) and keep them straight. the tubes would sag and bow visibly during the heat treating and c-dale shpped 'em on out. mr montgomery later admitted the bikes would track two different tire marks in a straight line.

the first mtn bikes used whacky 24 in rear wheels, but failed to use any sort of geometry to capitalize on them. the rear brake was a flimsy bmx sidepull.

the race bikes came out and weighed easily as much as a slx steel bike, and rode so horridly you really have to ridden one to grasp. in an effort to appeal to est roadies they put campy on them, but the super wide dropouts wouldn't shift with the campy deralleur. the paint fell off all of them, which wasn't so bad except the pop rivetted flext stamped steel cable stops did, too!

etc etc. mostly, they have a firm and long standing tradition of ( ahem) innovation and proprietary hooha which is R&D'd by the consumer, and generally never supported past the model year - tho come to think of it some things really are better off NOT supported . . . . . . :). the raven. the high pivot rear susp bike. coda disc brakes. the hollowgram bb (???). but hey, they are interesting. caad this and caad whatever - it's a hum drum world and interesting is cool by me and all. but uhhhhhhh buy one? they are more fun to watch, thanx.

Thanks for the reply. When I bought my road bike,I was a complete newbee and took the advice offered on my purchase. I am very happy with my purchase. Would I buy that now,after acouple years of education and now dedicating myself to at least an IM a year for the next few years,no.With that,I LOVE my bike. I would like to purchase a Tri bike but there is this money issue. Give me a couple of years,then having 5-6 IM's in me and I will drop some serious dime on getting what I want. Thanks again Kenney

got to concur with tridork on this one:

c'dale's tubes are outrageously fat. even their "aero" bikes seem laughably unaero and for years they made a hollow mockery of triathlon geometry and spec with their "tri bikes." the newer, higher end road bikes are wicked light and stiff, to be sure, but i think they're a one-trick pony in that regard. i road a century on a buddy's cdale once and nearly rattled the fillings out of my teeth. true, everyone'll gripe that comfort is about fit, but it seems to me that the cdale demanded more by way of painstakingly careful fit and aftermarket gear (carbon fork, saddle, bars+tape, stem etc etc) to get anywhere near as comfortable as on a "normal" bike.

if i had millions to spend and needed an "extra" climbing bike, i might get one. otherwise. . .

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I've had a R3000 since '02 and have put several thousand training and racing miles on it. I could buy a new one at anytime, but I like the one I have. I also owned a Scalpel 3000 for a winter to train on. It was a great MTB, but I didn't really need the rear suspension in Missouri.

I was going to ride a Ironman 5000 at GFT last year, but they didn't get them out of production in time to fill my order. Pondering doing one this year though.

Yeah, what's with everyone bashing Cannondale??? I ordered a Multisport 2000 and am anxiously awaiting it's arrival. I know they aren't the "in" bikes anymore and they had some pretty so so triathlon years but you can't take away that technically they push the envelope as much as or more than many other companies out there. They make very solid, very fast, very light bikes. Maybe they aren't the most exciting or as plush as my steel road frame but they are nice bikes. Granted I would almost have rather ordered the P2K or that cool new XLab Mach 2.0 but the cannodale was at a good price and looks pretty fast with a nice steep seat angle. And today I finally met someone else who was stoked about the new 2004 tri frames and had ordered one as well. Too bad he outran me in the sprint tri today...

Hey Tom,

Just out curiosity have you recieved any of your 2004 cannondale Ironman 2000 bikes yet?? I have one on order and Cannondale keeps saying it's coming soon but a sponsored friend of mine mentioned that the word that he heard was that the bike wasn't even officially available yet. He rode one a while ago and loved it, but when cannondale sent him his bike they sent him a 2003 model saying that he could exchange the bike for the 2004 once it became available. Something about the current prototypes not being ready for commercial production...

This friend also said that the 2004 felt much much faster than the 2003 he was on...

I love their bikes. I've never owned one. The first tri bike I rode was a C'dale 700 tri bike. 650 wheels etc. It was when very few companies even would say the word triathlon.

The problem I see is when you have a c'dale and go to non can'dale shop . They sometimes don't have the parts.

my first bike was an r700, was fine as i didnt have anything to compare it to. Later bought an m2000, it creaked non-stop esp when climbing out of the saddle.(creakendale)..cannondale replaced the frame and the new one creaked too. My biggest problem was the caad 4 aluminum beats the crap out of you on any pavement thats not smooth. That turned me off of c-dale and aluminum for good. Im sure their new bikes are better.

Word on the street is that they are having trouble on the IM 2000/5000 frames with the seat tubes cracking near the seatpost collar. If you are in a hurry, you may want to try the IM800 instead. It's a proven design and way cheaper.

Cannondales are good bikes, but as Mr. Empfield has previously stated most of their models are not very good values.

My first and only tri bike is a 1999 Cannondale MS 2000. I bought it before I knew anything about multisport bikes because it looked cool and was cheaper because it was the previous years model. I have since done 2IMs, several 1/2s as well as many sprints and du's and I have never, ever had a problem. I have no basis for comparison so I can't say it rides any better or worse than anything else, but it has worked well for me.

"Yeah, what's with everyone bashing Cannondale??? "



This wouldn't be a real bike-oriented group without some people bashing Cannondale. I'm even surprised that nobody hasn't called them Crack'n'fail yet! 10 years ago the problem with the R700 was that it wasn't a QR PR. Now the problem with the Multisport 2000 is that it's not a P2K and the 5000 is not a P3.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

I have a CAAD4. Its a good bike but not as what they market it as. They sold it to me as an "aero" tri bike when I was too dumb to know better. As others have said, the "aero" tubes are a joke and the geometry is strictly road. It is my road bike now and I like it in that capacity. It doesn't creak and I find it to be comfortable, even for long, long (i.e. 12-14 hour) days.

From what I've read, the new aero tubes are more aero and they have gotten a better handle on tri geometry. No idea if the new bikes are good values but if that's true, they are at least worth a look.

---

________________________________________________

Anyone who tells you they're as fast now as they were when they were 18...
sure wasn't very fast when they were 18.